AUGUST 6, 1960

HYDE PARK
—People have been writing to me from Cuba urging me to visit down there, so I have
decided to point out here to these people who seem to think that we in the United
States lack understanding of their problems that we did not begin the name-calling
that has caused feeling between our countries. The Cubans started it by finding fault
with every action of our government.

I am a Democrat and might be inclined to criticize the Administration on some policies,
but I cannot find that in this particular case there has been much that could have
been done otherwise. The hard words have been mostly on the Cuban side. Our President
has been, on the whole, conciliatory and mild.

It is true that President Eisenhower cut the Cuban sugar quota, but what else did
the Cubans expect him to do? They keep calling the U.S. aggressive and militaristic
when not a move has been made by us to try to hurt them by force. We could hardly
be expected to view with pleasure the growing tendency on the part of Cuba to align
itself economically with the Communist countries. But Cuba has at no time had to fear
military intervention from the U.S.

No one here could fail to view with sympathy the efforts of a successful revolutionary
leader to establish better conditions for his people. But to do this such a leader
would have to have a sound economic basis. And to this very little thought has been
given by the Cuban government.

So, suddenly they find themselves involved in good works that need money to implement
them but without the money to carry them forward.

We should perhaps be sympathetic toward Premier Castro in his illness, which probably
has come about because of hard work and anxiety. It may well be that enforced quiet
and time for thought may give him a chance to look back over the past months and decide
just where his real friends can be found. If such a change in Castro should take place,
we should regard the illness as a blessing.

No individual such as myself could do anything by going into a situation of this kind
without authority and without any influence at home. It is not lack of interest that
keeps me from visiting Cuba, but the sense of the futility of such a journey and the
realization of the disappointment that would come to the Cuban people if they thought
there was anything I could do for them.

Since 1950 Iran has been on unobtrusive but friendly terms with Israel. Now, quite
suddenly President Nasser of the United Arab Republic has picked up the Shah of Iran's
factual answer to a question and made out of it an incident which I am sure has caused
many people to think that Iran has just recognized Israel and that a new relationship
has been established. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing has changed
in the relationship.

Israel-Iran relations have never been obtrusive in any way, but where it has been
advantageous for the Iranians to deal with the
Israelis
they have been able to do so. And this would really be a very good thing for all
the Arab states to do. They would find gradually that there was advantage to them
in having some kind of communication with a country which can offer much and also
offer good relations.

Why should Mr. Nasser want to prolong a situation from which nobody is deriving any
good, when by a little tact the difficulties could be allowed gradually to melt away?
The rest of the world would be relieved and the Arab states themselves would discover
that the Soviet Union, alone, is not always a comfortable partner. In the end, a Near
East that would not be torn internally would be able to meet its mutual difficulties
to greater advantage.